Rafael Martinez Nadal v. David May
| Decision Date | 12 December 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 130,130 |
| Parties | RAFAEL MARTINEZ NADAL, Plff. in Err., v. DAVID W. MAY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. N. B. K. Pettingill and F. L. Cornwell for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 447-449 intentionally omitted] Mr. Felix Frankfurter and Mr. Wolcott H. Pitkin, Jr., Attorney General of Porto Rico, for defendant in error.
This is a suit by the plaintiff in error to establish his title to one-half interest in a plantation called 'Carmen,' as devisee of his aunt, Altagracia Nadal. It is alleged that the plantation was bought with the separate money of Altagracia Nadal by her husband, after marriage; that she became the owner of one undivided half, subject to the administration of her husband until the termination of the conjugal partnership, and that this half passed to her devisee at her death. The complaint admits that after the purchase the husband purported to convey the whole plantation to a third person, but alleges that the wife did not consent to the conveyance, and that therefore her rights remained.
It appears that on May 1, 1901, Altagracia Nadal brought a suit against her husband for an account of her paraphernal property, alleging, among other things, that he had recorded in his favor the estate Carmen, acquired by a deed of October 25, 1900, and praying judgment that it was her private property because bought with her separate funds, and for a cautionary notice to be entered in the registry. On November, 10, 1901, a settlement was made by which it was stated that the husband had received $10,000 as the product of the wife's paraphernal property, had paid her $5,000 and given a mortgage for the other $5,000, and in view thereof, she 'renounces all the rights and interests which she might have against her husband because of the facts stated in the said complaint.' The instrument was presented to the court with a prayer that the court would hold that the parties had desisted from continuing the action and that the cautionary notice be canceled, which was granted on November 21. There had been conveyances of Carmen, without consideration, it was testified; there was a reconveyance to the husband, and on June 2, 1902, he conveyed it, without his wife's consent, to Elisa Sanjurjo, who, on August 29 of the same year, conveyed it to the people of Porto Rico, for valuable consideration, there being then no cautionary notice on record. On April 10, 1906, the wife assigned to the plaintiff the mortgage received by her on the above settlement, and on April 27, 1906, made the will under which the plaintiff claims.
By this will the testatrix left to the plaintiff a mortgage described, with all its rights and actions (asi como todos sus derechos y acciones) and also the mortgage assigned on April 10, in case the assignment should not have been effective in favor of her said nephew Rafael Martinez y Nadal, todos los derechos y acciones que puedan caberme en los bienes mios que est em a nombre de mi esposo Isidro Fernandez Sanjurjo, en virtud de la transacci on celebrada con mi dicho esposo.
The plaintiff's claim is founded on these last words. The official translation accepted by the court reads that she leaves the mortgage 'in case the assignment shall not have become effective, all the rights and actions which may pertain to me in my properties which are in the name of my husband Isidro Fernandez Sanjurjo, by virtue of the settlement made with my said husband.' The plaintiff contends that the word 'and' should be read in before 'all the rights and actions' on the notion that an y has dropped out or should be implied. He argues that the estate Carmen was not embraced in the settlement, because community property in which the wife had and retained a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Castro v. Board of Com Rs of San Juan
...It is enough to cite (De) Villanueva v. Villanueva, 239 U.S. 293, 299, 36 S.Ct. 109, (111), 60 L.Ed. 293; Nadal v. May, 233 U.S. 447, 454, 34 S.Ct. 611, (612), 58 L.Ed. 1040. This is especially true in dealing with the decisions of a Court inheriting and brought up in a different system fro......
-
Rivera v. Celebrezze, Civ. No. 168-65.
...U.S. 375, 33 S.Ct. 350, 57 L.Ed. 556; Santa Fe Central Ry. v. Friday, 232 U. S. 694, 34 S.Ct. 468, 58 L.Ed. 802; Nadal v. May, 233 U.S. 447, 34 S.Ct. 611, 58 L.Ed. 1040, (1914); De Villanueva v. Villanueva, 239 U.S. 293, 36 S.Ct. 109, 60 L.Ed. 293, (1915); Díaz v. González, 261 U.S. 102, 43......
- Steinbach Kresge Co. v. Sturgess
-
Sancho v. Yabucoa Sugar Co, 498
...U.S.C.A. § 731 et seq. 13 See, Garzot v. Rios de Rubio, 209 U.S. 283, 302, 28 S.Ct. 548, 556, 52 L.Ed. 794. 14 Nadal v. May, 233 U.S. 447, 454, 34 S.Ct. 611, 612, 58 L.Ed. 1040. 15 Santa Fe Cent. R. v. Friday, 232 U.S. 694, 700, 34 S.Ct. 468, 469, 58 L.Ed. 802. 16 Phoenix R. Co. v. Landis, ......